Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 74:2 (Fall 2012)
Article: Cognitive Linguistics And The Tripartite Division Of The Law
Author: Peter D. Myers

WTJ 74:2 (Fall 2012) p. 387

Cognitive Linguistics And
The Tripartite Division Of The Law

Peter D. Myers

Peter D. Myers is a Church of England ordinand currently studying for a Masters degree at Oak Hill Theological College, London.

The doctrine of the tripartite division of the Mosaic Law into the categories moral, civil, and ceremonial has been largely rejected by evangelicals today. Despite the doctrine’s early attestation in Justin and Ptolemy;1 support from theologians such as Augustine, Cranmer, and Calvin;2 and almost universal attestation in Protestant confessions of the Reformation era,3 the doctrine has joined the ever growing number of passé teachings in the Reformed confessions which good evangelical ministers feel comfortable ignoring. This is not to say there has been a focused reconsideration of the issue, but rather that for various reasons, some of which I shall outline below, side-lining and rejecting the doctrine has become the evangelical default.

WTJ 74:2 (Fall 2012) p. 388

It is my belief that evangelicals (particularly Reformed evangelicals) should seriously reconsider their views on this matter, and I shall seek to demonstrate that there is a sound methodological basis for doing so through the application of cognitive linguistics to the writings of the Reformed divines and to Scripture. A justification for employing cognitive linguistics will be given in section 1, but I shall give two reasons here why the doctrine is worth re-examining at all.

First, the doctrine has been rejected largely as a by-product of responding to the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), and without understanding it as expressed in its best form; nor has any attempt been made to advance the doctrine in light of modern developments in theology and linguistics. The idea that when Paul rejected “works of the Law” in Galatians he was speaking specifically about Jewish identity markers was seen by many as a threat to the doctrine of sola fide.4 The response of the neo-Lutheran school which emerged was to undercut this claim by asserting that Paul viewed the Law as a unity. Despite the fact that the influential treatments of the doctrine by Carson and Westerholm are subtle and nuanced (neither absolutely denies a distinction between moral and ceremonial), they take place in volumes written in response to the NPP, do not address the lexical basis for the distinction, are almost exclusively centered on the NT, and are (anecdotally) appropriated by some to be saying that the distinction is completely invalid.